Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Comment: #3
Sat May 3, 2008 6:15 AM
Thank you Mark Shields. I love history, and I am afraid the history we are making all over again will not serve us well. I don't think it is wise to run a woman or a black for the Presidency. Mrs. Clinton has been practicing for the part for a long time. I don't think either of the Clintons thought much about how they would be perceived, and if they had they would have left Al Gore in a better place from which to start. I don't think they did much for the office, for the people, or for themselves. Yet, people love Mrs. Clinton, and I wonder why. A black man has a much harder row to hoe to reach the presidency. And it is strange that we look at a man without political history or political baggage, and for that very reason, consider him a viable candidate. In fact, Mr. Obama is an intelligent and educated individual, and for that reason alone is qualified. But, and who could guess it; some people in America are prejudiced against Blacks, if not out right rascists. I count myself in this number, and still I am willing to give him a chance. Why? It is simple. He is intelligent, but as of yet, uncorrupted, and the greatest financial support in this land goes to those who have proven they are corrupt in advance. It is not necessary that a person accept bribes. If they can be made rich before being elected they will think always as a rich person, and of their class before the working class. I accept that by now, being educated, and being an attorney, that Mr. Obama is corrupt. I am all the more certain that Mrs. Clinton is more corrupt by miles, and will not do one single thing to limit the power or wealth of the rich. Without making the rich pay for some of what they now enjoy for free, there will be no fixing of America. You mentioned the Gas tax on television. It is in some respects the perfect example. We all should pay for our roads and infrastucture, but some benefit more than others. I might pay for roads through a gas tax, but if the only place I go is to work or the store is it not fair that they should pay too? Business People use up communities and infrastructure, and when they are done they seek yonder a more condusive tax base, and willing population, leaving to other people and other generation the problems they have midwifed. I think the Democrats are fools to put forth the candidates they have, and yet when did they have a choice? They are not a party made up of clones feeding of a single table, and feeling with the same heart. The democrates are the party of division and always have been. They are the party of everybody else, and always have been. There is no essential unity to them, and no natural point of agreement. One could look at the election of Mr. Obama as the greatest joke ever played on long dead founding fathers, and I hope it is pulled off. Whether he is elected or not, we should all look at Mr. Obama and realize that this is what many Black people could be if given a chance, the right environment, the right education, and a moderate amount of hope. So. naturally, I think of Mrs Clinton as a spoiler. And long before this election, too. Together the Clintons had a chance to do something, and did nothing. As far as I can see they have had their chance.
|
Posted by: Mario D. Mazzarella
Comment: #4
Thu May 8, 2008 2:24 PM
Dear Mr. Shields:
Repeatedly reporters refer to "Catholic voters" in this campaign as if they formed some sort of voting bloc or group. As a Catholic I cannot find why Catholics would support one candidate or the other because of their faith. It would be different if there were some hot-button issue out there that was drawing Catholics more to one than the other. Maybe I'm obtuse, but I don't see it. As a fellow Catholic can you please, please tell us if you actually see a "Catholic vote" this time and, if so, what is drawing them? Or, conversely, if the phrase is meaningless in the context of this campaign.
|
